3 ms·

>An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Things only really get bad when

>An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Things only really get bad when people are encouraged to form and defend identities around characteristics like race, religion, national origin, etc. I'm sorry - I need help in understanding how this "equally valid". To me this seems like a justification ex post facto to defend "jokes", but it seems to fly in the face history. I find it hard to reconcile that post-slavery attitudes about race in America came about because people were no longer allowed to make jokes. Alternatively this kind of explanation hand waves away the cultural history that makes those jokes funny in the first place. To note, I believe that DHH handled this situation horribly which has caused the situation to escalate to epic proportions. The adult thing to do when you come across a rather juvenile list of "funny" names to accept that you were wrong and move on. To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior leads to nonsensical arguments about why it's someone's right to make lavatorial jokes during standup.

didgeoridoo 6y ago
I want to help clarify but I’m having trouble parsing your question. Can you please rephrase?
- nemothekid 6y ago
  >An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    He isn't making the claim, he is saying both claims are equally valid hypotheses (before you test against reality.)
  - didgeoridoo 6y ago
    Oh I see, sorry. I’m not making that claim. I’m saying that there is equal evidence (none, as far as I know) for that claim as there is for the claim that certain jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide. Neither should be given much credence without evidence. The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide, and I see no reason to reject it.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - mpyne 6y ago
      > jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide Again, the 'pyramid of hate' logic does not claim that jokes necessarily lead to genocide or that jokes are structurally required for genocide. Just that they can be one of many causes of erosion of the social boundaries that ensure people think of each other as people rather than dehumanizing others. It is only to the extent that jokes become a tool for hateful sappers to undermine your team that they start to become necessarily problematic, but you shouldn't let things get to that point.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw Offensive jokes are very highly context sensitive. People can be offended very, some may argue too, easily. Other people are very difficult to offend. Hard to know. Humanizing the field of play can do a whole lot of good. Can get people talking in real terms and being OK on those terms. An overly fenced field of play can see building of tension despite the very best intent. There can be solidarity in all that. Just being people, same as any people is often solid grounding. Atrocities are harder in such a scenario. Everyone is more human, do unto others makes more sense when the others are similar, humans, wanting, needing similar things, running in similar ways. "Those other people" can often be the start of something really ugly, depending on just what gets attached to "other." We are as offended as we think we are. I am not marginalizing it at all! Being uber offended sucks. But, we do have options. We do manage our response to others. We do have control over how we see others, can relate to them, see it from their view. Humor is one of the more powerful ways to do that. It can bridge gaps, open doors, humanize others, make the very ugly, foul, something that does not own us. We have to be careful with "openly" and "offensive." The subset of expression sure to not offend is quite small. The scope of possible good, or at the least not nefarious intent is just as large.
shkkmo 6y ago
Humor has a long history as use as a coping mechanism for difficult situations. Both hypotheses are extremely difficult to prove or disprove and most likely, neither is strictly true. Human society is complicated / varied and I find it quite possible that there are times where hatred progressed both directions on that pyramid. There are also probably times where good natured blowing of of steam help prevent difficult situations from devolving and times where it inflamed hatred. I don't understand what would make one theory "ex post facto" and the other not since both have similar temporal positioning... But I don't think the point was to justify the jokes, I think the point was to call into question the epistemic justifications. > To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior What defense was offered? This list was openly acknowledged as unprofessional, inappropriate, and something that should have been caught sooner.
prawn 6y ago
I read both his pieces where he did apologise for the list (that he wasn't directly part of, but had overlooked). And then from my reading, he did try to shut down escalation and move on.
vxNsr 6y ago
> The adult thing to do when you come across a rather juvenile list of "funny" names to accept that you were wrong and move on. This is exactly what he did. > To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior leads to nonsensical arguments about why it's someone's right to make lavatorial jokes during standup. He didn’t try to defend the list he just didn’t believe the idea that this list had some sorta deep seated root in racism. There were just as many “funny” Anglo/European names as Asian/African/etc from what I understand. He called out ppl trying to act self righteous when they themselves participated in the list making in the recent past and said this list is not proof of deep-seated racism in the company. That wasn’t good enough for the activists so they revolted. ETA: people are logging their disagreement in downvotes but I haven’t seen a counter argument to this at any point in this thread, I’m ok with the dv, just interested in hearing the opposing view.

didgeoridoo 6y ago

I want to help clarify but I’m having trouble parsing your question. Can you please rephrase?

nemothekid 6y ago
>An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?
- shkkmo 6y ago
  He isn't making the claim, he is saying both claims are equally valid hypotheses (before you test against reality.)
- didgeoridoo 6y ago
  Oh I see, sorry. I’m not making that claim. I’m saying that there is equal evidence (none, as far as I know) for that claim as there is for the claim that certain jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide. Neither should be given much credence without evidence. The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide, and I see no reason to reject it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mpyne 6y ago
    > jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide Again, the 'pyramid of hate' logic does not claim that jokes necessarily lead to genocide or that jokes are structurally required for genocide. Just that they can be one of many causes of erosion of the social boundaries that ensure people think of each other as people rather than dehumanizing others. It is only to the extent that jokes become a tool for hateful sappers to undermine your team that they start to become necessarily problematic, but you shouldn't let things get to that point.
- ddingus 6y ago
  https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw Offensive jokes are very highly context sensitive. People can be offended very, some may argue too, easily. Other people are very difficult to offend. Hard to know. Humanizing the field of play can do a whole lot of good. Can get people talking in real terms and being OK on those terms. An overly fenced field of play can see building of tension despite the very best intent. There can be solidarity in all that. Just being people, same as any people is often solid grounding. Atrocities are harder in such a scenario. Everyone is more human, do unto others makes more sense when the others are similar, humans, wanting, needing similar things, running in similar ways. "Those other people" can often be the start of something really ugly, depending on just what gets attached to "other." We are as offended as we think we are. I am not marginalizing it at all! Being uber offended sucks. But, we do have options. We do manage our response to others. We do have control over how we see others, can relate to them, see it from their view. Humor is one of the more powerful ways to do that. It can bridge gaps, open doors, humanize others, make the very ugly, foul, something that does not own us. We have to be careful with "openly" and "offensive." The subset of expression sure to not offend is quite small. The scope of possible good, or at the least not nefarious intent is just as large.

shkkmo 6y ago

Humor has a long history as use as a coping mechanism for difficult situations. Both hypotheses are extremely difficult to prove or disprove and most likely, neither is strictly true. Human society is complicated / varied and I find it quite possible that there are times where hatred progressed both directions on that pyramid. There are also probably times where good natured blowing of of steam help prevent difficult situations from devolving and times where it inflamed hatred. I don't understand what would make one theory "ex post facto" and the other not since both have similar temporal positioning... But I don't think the point was to justify the jokes, I think the point was to call into question the epistemic justifications. > To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior What defense was offered? This list was openly acknowledged as unprofessional, inappropriate, and something that should have been caught sooner.

prawn 6y ago

I read both his pieces where he did apologise for the list (that he wasn't directly part of, but had overlooked). And then from my reading, he did try to shut down escalation and move on.

vxNsr 6y ago

> The adult thing to do when you come across a rather juvenile list of "funny" names to accept that you were wrong and move on. This is exactly what he did. > To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior leads to nonsensical arguments about why it's someone's right to make lavatorial jokes during standup. He didn’t try to defend the list he just didn’t believe the idea that this list had some sorta deep seated root in racism. There were just as many “funny” Anglo/European names as Asian/African/etc from what I understand. He called out ppl trying to act self righteous when they themselves participated in the list making in the recent past and said this list is not proof of deep-seated racism in the company. That wasn’t good enough for the activists so they revolted. ETA: people are logging their disagreement in downvotes but I haven’t seen a counter argument to this at any point in this thread, I’m ok with the dv, just interested in hearing the opposing view.